Pennsylvanians keep their spirits up despite another liquor privatization stall

Bottles of liquor are shown on shelves at a state-run liquor store, Wednesday, March 7, 2012, in Seattle. Washington state begins the process of fully privatizing its alcoholic beverage business on Thursday when a public auction of state-run liquor stores opens online, marking a historic change for a state that has tightly controlled its booze since the end of Prohibition. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny County, who has been on the front lines during this most recent push to end the state’s monopoly on selling wine and liquor put a cork in his plan last week. He vows he will be back in the fall, but some are speculating the issue could go the way of previous unsuccessful efforts during the Thornburgh and Ridge administrations.

Gov. Tom Corbett says he supports the idea and, in fact, commissioned a study to look at the feasibility of selling off the stores. Some involved in the debate, however, say the governor really preferred waiting until 2013 to focus on privatization. In the end, even though the House GOP holds a 110-91 majority, it could not muster the votes.

Turzai’s bill would authorize the sale of about 1,600 retail liquor licenses with owners of beer distributors getting the first opportunity to buy a license. The beer distributors also would be allowed to sell six-packs instead of just cases. He estimated the sale would generate $500 million to $750 million in revenue. But the issue of whether beer distributors should have first dibs at retail licenses as opposed to other businesses, such as supermarkets and convenience stores, became a huge hurdle.

It should have. There needs to be a way of putting all the parties on even footing. This is a basic consumer issue. The drumbeat that 5,000 employees of the liquor stores would lose their jobs that came from the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776, which represents store employees, also is causing lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to pause given the economy.

It is unfortunate because state liquor control, which was the product of the Prohibition era, is clearly not a core function of state government and needs to go. But this latest setback, along with those of the past, shows how hard it is to get a win.

This despite polling that shows the majority of Pennsylvanians support the idea of privatization, many newspaper editorial boards, including ours, championing the notion and financially strong special-interest groups wanting it.

As one lobbyist involved in the fight said last week, “public support is a mile wide and an inch deep.” Consumers say they want privatization, but in the end, people are not likely to fill the Capitol Rotunda, carrying signs that say “get government’s hands off my Merlot” and demanding more holiday store hours.

And that hits home with many legislators. Senate Appropriations Chairman Jake Corman, who represents part of Perry County, said recently the issue does not really come up among his constituents. The Senate GOP majority has made no secret that liquor store privatization was not on its agenda right now and isn’t inclined to change that decision without voter outcry.

The other problem facing Turzai, and the governor, is that many powerful entities with a stake in the issue — beer distributors, beer wholesalers, beer importers, convenience stores, grocery stores, restaurants and taverns — want their share if privatization happens, and they make that clear to supportive lawmakers.

Rep. John Taylor, a Philadelphia Republican who chairs the House Liquor Control Committee, probably put it best. He has said tweaking the current system to ease restrictions on beer sales or allow consumers to have wine shipped to their homes directly from wineries, could happen. Getting rid of state liquor stores entirely is much, much more difficult, and putting together the votes for it is like solving a Rubik’s cube. As soon as you twist one color, another color gets out of joint, he said.

Jeanette Krebs

History also shows this dilemma is nothing new, especially in a state where there are still factions that want to make the sale of alcohol as difficult as possible. The legislative debate that took place on Feb. 5, 1992, could have happened just last week. A lawmaker tried to add an amendment to a bill that would have divested the state liquor control board.

To dismantle the controlled sale of alcoholic beverages would be a threat to public safety, pronounced one lawmaker. There was talk of big monopolies buying up all the liquor licenses and whether the state would really come out financially ahead through a sale. The amendment failed 149-47.

Turzai and the governor can learn from the failings of this issue from the past. At this point, they might be wise to go back and look at the details of the nearly 300-page report by Public Financial Management. It concluded that a private system would have the best financial benefits to the people of Pennsylvania and included scenarios for accomplishing that. Our editorial board said legislators should wait until the fall and work on a more comprehensive bill.

The complexity of the issue is enough to keep you up late at night, but don’t try and buy a bottle of rum at that hour to help you sleep. All the state stores will be closed. 
Jeanette Krebs is editorial page editor. 717-255-8111 or jkrebs@patriot-news.com.